Replies

In our council in the SF Bay Area, an assistant scoutmaster informed other leaders that he would not mind accepting gay leadership in the troop. Others disagreed and that was that. However in a "liberal area" like SF, the pressure on troops by sponsors, gay rights groups, schools, and some liberal parents is very high.

I agree with you that what will happen is troops who admit openly gay leadership will find their members come from the strict liberal multiculturalist group while traditional BSA families will seek out troops who do not allow openly gay leadership. I suspect the vast majority of scout families will seek the traditional orientation.

This will also empower the athiest rights group to renew their pressure on local scout troops too. This is different as "reverent" is a scout law and an Eagle requirement. Who would have thought when I was a scout that these discussions would be so in vogue today?

BTW, after my son was awarded his Eagle Rank, we sold our Bay Area house and migrated to Alabama. I don't expect the BSA to be under much pressure in our new home state.

You are right about the different nature of the debates about including homosexuals vs. atheists. There are numerous people who maintain that "morally straight" and "homosexual" are not mutually exclusive, and there are religous denominations that back them up. However, I don't see how anyone can reconcile "Duty to God" and "A Scout is ... Reverent" with "atheist".

One complication that I fear from allowing "local option" (where a local unit would be as free to choose homosexuals as leaders as they now are to choose, say, abortion providers) is that local governments and organizations might then start harassing individual units that refuse to enroll homosexuals. The BSA would be able to use their SCOTUS (I keep typing SCOUTS) victories to fight that off, but it would consume time, money, and resources at the local level for a while.